skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
First a disclaimer: I think combating dis/misinformation has been a Herculean task in the last two years. I am not an expert on this by any means, and the scope and social context of Brazil need to be taken into consideration. As I'm not from Brazil, I cannot help you with this.

With that out of the way, the best book I read regarding conflict and resolution has been "Conscious Business" by Fred Kofman. While his strategies relate largely to the business world, they are applicable in a very general sense. I bring this up because these strategies will help you in framing and explaining why this matters to you.

The main takeaway from the book is that you need to approach these problems from a place of infinite empathy. Remember, your final goal is not to "win the conversation" or have the last word, it's to come to an agreement of shared values and collectively (that means, you and your parents) build a strategy in combating the underlying problem.

To build that strategy, I recommend taking a page out of the Less Wrong sequences, and _Hold Off On Proposing Solutions_ [1]. Somewhat ironic given what I am currently doing, so I suppose I have already failed. Anyways, on this note, recall I said that the goal was an "agreement of shared values." Start here. Begin by listing your values and frame these in the context of the conversation.

As for the exact solution, it may very well be a matter of how you form beliefs vs. how your parents form beliefs. Being able to describe your epistemology and how it differs from their own is a valuable tool. However, it can often be difficult to carry a heavy conversation for long enough to get to the root of this. I point back at Fred Kofman, and having a well of infinite empathy. You have to be willing to commit a lot of time.

And to that last point (committing a lot of time), there are some stories out there of people being converted both to and from dis/misinformation. I've been thinking about this quite a bit over the last couple years. Fortunately, there are people who are better at this than I am. Jane Lytvynenko [2] is a wonderful disinformation reporter, and she puts out a lot of resources for how to spot fake news, how to look at evidence critically, how to critically examine online content, etc. She doesn't quite get to using Bayes' theorem, but dismissing fake news and contrived stories doesn't often rise to the level of needing Bayesian reasoning (although it does help!).

With that said, I'm sorry that you're encountering this with your parents. While few have commented, I think more than a fair share of people are running into this issue more and more. The most important part is the empathy, and remembering your goal. After that, the best you can hope for is enough time and energy to help drive the point.

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uHYYA32CKgKT3FagE/hold-off-o...
[2] https://twitter.com/JaneLytv
My spouse was an elected official in California, and we had to fill out Form 700; diversified mutual funds didn't need to be disclosed as long as they met the definitions (at least 100 investors, at least 15 issuers, not a sector fund). Of course, Form 700 doesn't apply to federal officials elected to represent California; but a similar disclosure requirement / duty to avoid apparent conflict of interest would be nice at the federal level.

It should be pretty simple for most elected officials to dump their publicly traded stock and get into a diversified mutual fund before they start campaigning and while they hold office. For those who have concentrated holdings that are hard to dump, they could put it into a blind trust or whatever. Office holders really shouldn't be making a lot of trades; equity based compensation aside (either of their spouse or if they're a part time officer where those still exist, and have a part time job with equity based compensation)
Still requires signal server.

Is it possible to avoid the signal server in some way? So we can have true p2p network inside a browser directly.
Depends on the game. I've found communities whose preferred method of communication is Facebook Messenger!
When did I say that?

Maybe someday address scraping bots will learn base64. Maybe it will be at about the same time you learn to read.
Punctuation is a way of communicating tone, and a more friendly way of communicating is to omit periods. Note that omitting a question mark actually makes a message less friendly, so it’s a matter of observation and convention rather than inherent nature. For example, repeated commas,,, give more of a trailing off tone than ellipsis... which indicates a pause. I think kids get this kind of stuff intuitively and adults have to be told more often.
WhatsApp and the Domestication of Users
It was his life savings.
It is relative, many people who never attended college thinks that all engineers and doctors are geniuses. If you were less talented you'd likely call the current you a genius as well. If you were more talented maybe you wouldn't consider Carmack a genius, who knows? He probably doesn't consider himself a genius at least, he can point to the likes of Einstein and Newton and say that he is very lacking in comparison.
> talent is a huge factor for success in the field.

Success in the field as in research? Most certainly so.

However I think you're overestimating the 'math IQ' of STEM (under)grads especially considering the large discrepancy among its different subfields. Engineering students (EE/ME/Civil) are systematically 'dumber' maths-wise compared to their science (Maths [duh] or Physics) counterparts. Still, it's quite likely that you do not have to be a genius to be successful at landing a highly-paid, mentally-challenging related job.

About parenting, smart math kids may not have had their egos boosted however their parents almost certainly exposed them to science from an early age. This holds true especially for children coming from 'STEM families'.
Have you? Because Audi EV might look like luxurious hotel when stationary, but start driving and you quickly realize its EV for the old people made to feel like petrol car.
To test if you're vulnerable:

sudoedit -s '\' `perl -e 'print "A" x 65536'`

Per: https://www.sudo.ws/alerts/unescape_overflow.html

Write-up: https://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2021/Jan/79
Can the value of that IOU drop to zero if the lendee can't return the share, e.g. if lendee no longer holds the share and none are for sale? Does the IOU specify alternate restitution in that case?
Wasn't immediately clear to me why the derivative comes into play, but let me see if I understand the gist of it. I think this is something interesting I haven't thought about in dataviz before...

So in a traditional 2D heatmap, we discretize the space into squares or bins, then color the bin "proportional" to the number of points that fall inside the bin.

If we're making a 2D heatmap of a timeseries, though, we don't really want to count up the discrete points that make up the timeseries because our binning may not line up with our timeseries sampling frequency. Especially not if we want a very high-resolution heatmap, where each bin is sized to be 1 pixel.

So the solution isn't to count the number of points (from the timeseries data series) in each bin, but rather to count the number of lines that get projected/drawn into each bin (pixel).

But we need to go a step further... if we think of each bin as a hypothetical square, the shortest line through a square is a vertical or horizontal line. And the longest line through a square is a diagonal line. So if we want to represent "how much" of the line goes through a square, we need to measure its slope. Hence, derivative.

So by 2D heatmapping lines instead of points, we're not just counting how many lines fall into each bin, but we also need to weigh each bin-line occurrence by it's arc length, which we use the derivative as a proxy for.

Neat! (I think...)
His companies have been battered, protested, and boycotted. He also donated his entire presidential salary. No one asked him to. WSB bets top posts are literally AOC, a democrat congresswoman, supporting them right now and somehow someone is still finding a way to blame Trump?
Denying communication completely could be a disaster in this case. In the absence of their precious DD, what number do you think the WSB'rs are going to choose to set their limits at? 420.69 seems a little too low right now. My bet would be 42,069 at least.
Sounds like cigarette smoking in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and in some places even in the 80s.

“Don’t drink don’t smoke what do you do?”

Not cool if you don’t smoke pot.

What crap. I wish I had known that when I was younger.
Was glad to be the opposite of this study, been consuming cannabis since 13-14 pretty much daily, a few breaks here there maybe 6 months total not consuming in that time span. Happily married with a kid and full time job. BUT I will say it became a crutch and a money sink.

Heading into my 40s with the plan to stop daily consumption, currently only have CBD strains in the house, my friend likes to the call it methadone for pot heads. Wish me luck.

The one person from our group of friends is schizophrenic and it was heavy cocaine use that seemed to have opened that pandoras box. He's many many years sober and steady eddy on his medication doing really well.

Another friend is bipolar schizoaffective and his relationship with cannabis is toxic at best. He knows it's the last thing he should be indulging in, but unfortunately in his mind he can't find any other way to fall asleep. Heavy indica strains tend to bring on mania for him.
The world is an extremely complex place, and valuing things is extremely hard. There are way to many factors that contribute. The "correct" value will vary based on both factors in the world, as well as individual-specific factors[0].

The next-best alternative is one of them. We are currently in an economic situation where money is literally being printed by the trillions, there has not been a offsetting set of funds going back to the government (thus increasing the money supply), and interest rates are 0 (and stated to stay there for the forseeable future). There is lots of money, that has to go to something, which raises the price of everything (or devalues the dollar, depending on how you look at it).

You ask 'Is there any event that would cause the value to "correct"?'. As a definitely-not-economist, I would guess any event that modifies either of the aspects I mentioned above. Reducing the money supply (perhaps taxing capital gains more reasonably), or increasing interest rates.

[0] I want to point out here that each individual entity buying something will have a different "correct price" for them, based on individual factors, especially at scale. One of these is individual risk, and how the risk associated with a given stock correlates with other risk in your life. If you live in an oil town, investing in a correlated asset should require a better potential payoff, and thus a better entry point, than someone who has no other oil exposure (if the industry collapses, do you really want to lose both your job and your investments?)

PS:

> It doesn't make sense for TLSA

I never said, and would never make the argument, that TSLA is "correctly" valued. But I'm also not insane so am not going to try to short it.
I assume you're on the upper end of the bell curve. Well, unless you're the furthest to the right (in some combination of talents), then there's someone further out there than you. You can beat yourself up about not being as smart as they are, but you'd have to be the smartest to avoid it. So, maybe you should stop expecting that you should be able to keep up.

What's more, for some of these people, it wasn't easy for them, either. General relativity wasn't easy for Einstein. He literally asked someone to "come help me with the mathematics before I go mad". That is, Einstein thought he wasn't smart enough to understand it!

Comparing yourself to others on smarts is a game you can only lose, because someone else is always smarter. Even if you're the smartest (Einstein, maybe), there's some related area or different combination where you're not. Someone else is better at math... or has more background in algebraic topology... or Hilbert spaces... or...

So don't be so hard on yourself. Stop playing the comparison game, because you can only lose. Instead, be who you are, and make the most you can of who that is.
The issue with this study is that it is pigeon holed on psychological issues, which is not really a great metric to go by as all of our mileage varies and it really is an individual journey - if the study were more focused on the physical health related issues then this discussion would have a different tone.
Oh dear... Thank you for that info.
They already could. And despite what most comment on this thread is asserting this is probably a net positive for the average joe. I used to work at a small futures exchange and this hardly strikes me as a self serving move but rather a way to avoid a bunch random Joe’s from getting screwed by the powerhouse companies and bad actors out there and avoiding more regulation when it starts happening regularly.
This study followed "Australian high school students aged 15 in 1992." It was only last year that a single territory passed laws legalizing "possession and growth of small amounts of cannabis for personal use" [1].

There are a lot of confounding variables around this paper.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Australia
please double check to make sure that you're eligible in your state. for most states you have to be at least 65 and older if you're not an essential worker.
There's a solution here. In the past it was fidonet, today it might be the fediverse.
GitHub Actions Down
Is GitHub Actions down for anybody else too? No runs are starting here. There seems some chatter on Twitter but not much.

Edit: Their status page is now also showing an outage.
Reading these comments is strange. I thought it was well accepted that regular marijuana use in adolescence leads to all kinds of negative health implications.

I'd be more interested in excluding daily users and seeing the impact of recreational use, say once or twice a week.
If you think the Occupy Wall Street crowd is the one currently in control of democratic politics, then you have not been paying attention to democratic politics.
Analysis: Why the second Covid wave is nothing like the first
So, first of all, the net shares outstanding are still 100. All the extra, whatever, 200 shorts are balanced out by 200 extra longs, and that creates obligations between them, which must be managed as usual (collateral, margin calls, risk limits, ...)

To short a share, you must borrow and sell it.

If you buy a call, you're long. You could write a call and then you'd have short exposure, indeed, but on the wrong side - you lose on the way up, while you want to win on the way down. So, you could buy a put - that makes you short, winning on the way down. However, now the entity that wrote the put is long, and will generally cover their exposure by - shorting. No magic bullet there.
True; it was ready in January. Proving it is safe definitely takes times.

> By the time the first American death was announced a month later, the vaccine had already been manufactured and shipped to the National Institutes of Health for the beginning of its Phase I clinical trial.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/moderna-covid-19-vac...
Delivering with Empathy
Are you trolling or serious?
The subreddit has ~65,000 weekly active users (ignoring this week), and the screenshots of "big" positions aren't that common, and often from the same accounts.

It's a bit disingenuous for people to make it seem like there's thousands of people putting their life savings and retirements into stocks - and even so, I would guess that many of the people who do claim to use "life savings" actually mean "the 10k I had in my bank savings account" because they're only 23.
This is a dumb argument. By your logic, pump and dump schemes should be allowed because there is no such thing as actual value so the victims aren't actually affected. Right...

A group of people are coordinating a short squeeze. They are selling a get rich quick scheme and marketing it as anti-establishment. People who are late to the party and fall for the anti-establishment rhetoric will be the ones who lose their shirts.
The best breakdown is not succinct, but comes through the mailing list / column Money Stuff by Matt Levine. He's done three days of coverage of the various aspects of this as it's progressed.

It's not a short read, but is very easy to follow. I highly suggest subscribing!

[1] First day: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-25/the-ga...

[2] Second day: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/will-w...

[3] Today: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-27/reddit...
In some countries there is also the are unit of land, 10x10m. There are 100 of those in a hectare (hecto = 100).
This is exactly the non-argument people use for antivax, religions, cults, ... "who needs science when I know I'm right?" Anyone can say this about anything and it leads nowhere.

There's a fundamental difference between beliefs stemming from faith (or gut feel, anecdotes etc) and results from rigorous and falsifiable experiments, even if they happen to agree.
Yes, I reviewed the requirements in my state first before booking: https://www.walgreens.com/images/adaptive/findcare/covid19/V...
What is "Real science"? May you're thinking something that follows a specific method or satisfies some specific requirements. If you want to challenge that view, see this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

PS: That's not to say that this specific study is not bullshit.
Hurumph

How many people here call themselves "software engineers" when they never went to engineering school?
Zuckerberg is angry someone is gaining traction by playing against his 'needs'. Good.
> All state in any program is global in the sense of being reachable from top-level.

Well, think about a random number generator. It has some internal state, which gets set by some action taken (perhaps indirectly) by the top level. And that state is "reachable" by getting the next random number, but that random number may not be a direct representation of any part of the generator's state. Also, after initialization, the generator's state should not be alterable by the rest of the program.

So to me, that's not really "reachable". The entire point of encapulating that state in the random number generator is to make it not reachable.
You predicted we’d be able to judge an exoplanet’s density and composition?
This is like calling the pope “one priest”... I don’t think anyone else has managed to make the gains DeepFuckingValue has. Props to him for still holding, this entire affair is absolutely nuts.
Totally serious.

Drugs are fun. That is why people use them.

People have problems. When they have problems abnd use drugs they say they have drug problems. Maybe they do. But it is far more common for people to have no problems, just loads of fun.

Tripping on LSD with a thousand other people is magical experience.
>For those who disagree, how do you explain the very large number of people who spends tons of time and energy trying to get good at maths but fails to even grasp simple concepts like calculus?

Calculus isn't simple, calculus is an abuse of notation that works by anomalous cancellation in most of the cases you see in university.

Even for something as simple as arithmetic our notation is terrible and misleading. The people who are 'good at maths' are actually good at making unwarranted assumptions and extrapolations from incomplete data. Drawing the actual parse tree for expressions let my 7 year old cousin work at the level of a 12 year old even though she was failing the maths class before I helped her.
Ember does indeed include a lot, and it’s all designed to work nicely together. I also develop backend much more than front end, but knowing that we just are using the primary Ember way of doing something reduces the number of decision one has to make. And it should allow other Ember devs to hop into your software more easily due to its opinionated nature.
Part of the issue here is that anti-cannabis groups here have absolutely cried wolf. The stories of the purported harms of cannabis has been so long and ridiculous that most people instinctively disregard such warnings as nonsense.
Here's a repeatable experiment in the social sciences:

Do Conditional Cash Transfers Improve Child Health? Evidence from PROGRESA's Control
Randomized Experiment

Author(s): Paul Gertler

Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the One
Hundred Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association San Diego, CA,

January 3-5, 2004 (May, 2004), pp. 336-341

From Section IV (you're gonna have to Sci-Hub it):

"The randomization and the fact that the control and treatment samples are well balanced in
the observed characteristics imply that a simple
comparison of mean outcomes post-intervention
will likely provide an unbiased estimate of program impacts. However, I also control for other
observed socioeconomic characteristics in order
to reduce idiosyncratic variation and to improve
the power of the estimates."

Is this really more sus than a cell bio paper? Are the conclusions so weak that it's not real science? Were you just being sarcastic and it went over my head?
so you're okay with market manipulation? If value isn't real there should be no rules right?
> This just isn't a discussion that is had with people.

As you get older, that discussion comes up more frequently.

If you're 80 or 90 and have cancer, there's no "getting better."

When you read interviews with US MDs, they generally say, "Just DNR me."

As a society, the US needs to start addressing these issues.
It would be interesting to see how legalization in countries like Canada curbs this. Weed dealers are rarely just selling weed, and often harder drugs. To me it's not clear if this means "cannabis use leads to higher risk behaviour w.r.t drug use" or "exposure to drug dealers increases risk of trying other drugs". I see no clear reason to believe this over the other hypothesis.

Australia is not a country where cannabis is legal, so its system, and therefore impacts, are much less useful for study than a nation which takes a more modern approach to cannabis.
If you're willing to solve the discovery and NAT traversal problems yourself, but it's perfectly doable - AFAIU the WebRTC protocol doesn't care how you solve those problems, just that you do. See e.g. this little demo: https://github.com/lesmana/webrtc-without-signaling-server
Because the study pushes the narrative that correlation is causation, and that's just not true. The data is interesting, but the spin is irresponsible. Many people with mental health issues feel a stigma to seeing therapists and reach for something to numb the pain.

Plus, just because something has percieved negative effects on life outcome doesn't mean we outlaw it. For example, alcohol, prescription meds, having children before completing your education, the lottery, cigarettes, etc.
> Gambling through leveraged stocks should to be taxed more heavily to offset its cost. Something like the rate on lottery tickets.

I agree with your initial point, but I don't believe this would actually help. People who are gambling typically don't look at the expected outcome and make "rational" decisions. Therefore, taking action that just modifes the expected outcome is unlikely to have any impact on the behaviour. People will still assume/hope that they will win, and if they win just a bit less, then so be it.
Plain LDAP auth is free. Advanced features that a big company might need are $240. Fine by me.
Are you? Just take the comment at face value.

It's not unheard of for someone to have the opinion that the consequences of drug's legal status is more harmful than the drug itself.

I doubt being sentenced to 10 years in prison over selling weed is going to be less harmful than any negative effects observed in this study.